Sirikwa Squatters Group v Fanikiwa Limited & 20 others
The bottom line
#Supreme Court dismissed a review bid, ruling it was a disguised appeal with no jurisdiction.
What this practically means
#The Supreme Court rejected Sirikwa Squatters Group's request to review a previous judgment. The court found the group was trying to appeal again, which is not allowed. It also removed some documents because they were filed only online, not physically. Late responses from other parties were allowed to avoid unfairness. The applicant must pay costs to several respondents.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant has established a basis for the review of this Court’s decision.
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established grounds for review under Section 21A of the Supreme Court Act.
The applicant failed to establish any of the grounds under Section 21A; the application was an appeal disguised as a review.
The court examined each ground raised by the applicant: jurisdiction, consideration of facts, fraud, and condemnation of President Moi unheard. It found that the jurisdiction issue had already been determined in the judgment; consideration of facts was necessary to resolve the dispute; fraud was not proved as the affidavit of R.J. Simiyu was before the lower courts; and the other grounds were purely appeal grounds. The court concluded that the application did not fall within the review parameters and was an attempt to have the court reconsider the entire judgment, which it has no jurisdiction to do.
Whether the 5th-9th respondents' documents were properly filed.
The documents were not properly filed because physical copies were not filed as required by Rule 12(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2020, and were expunged from the record.
The court noted that despite filing electronically, the 5th-9th respondents did not file physical copies, running afoul of Rule 12(1). Citing Kenya Hotel Properties Limited v Attorney General and Sonko v Clerk, County Assembly of Nairobi City, the court held that failure to effect both physical and electronic filing means the document is not properly filed. The documents were expunged, but the court noted no prejudice as their submissions were similar to those of the 1st-4th respondents.
Whether the 2nd respondent/2nd appellant, 5th-9th respondents, 13th and 21st respondents filed their responses within time.
The responses were filed out of time, but the court exercised its discretion to consider them in the interests of justice.
The court applied Section 57 of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act to compute time, finding that 14 days from 28th December 2023 ended on 18th January 2024. The respondents filed after that date. However, citing the Jane Cheperenger Case, the court noted that late filing is not patently incurable and, given that the applicant had responded to most submissions and no prejudice was shown, the court considered the responses.
Legal principles established
#- The Supreme Court cannot sit on appeal over its own decisions.
- A review is not an appeal; it is limited to specific grounds like fraud or discovery of new evidence.
- Both physical and electronic copies must be filed under Supreme Court Rules, 2020.
- Late filing may be excused if no prejudice is shown and in the interests of justice.
- Fraud allegations must be proved with concrete evidence, not mere assertions.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 20th December 2023 is hereby dismissed.
- 2.The applicant shall bear the costs of the application which shall be payable to the 1st-4th respondents/appellants, the 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 18th and 21st respondents.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Supreme Court of Kenya
- SC Petition No. E001 of 2023 (consolidated)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 21A of the Supreme Court Act, Cap 9B
Relief refused
#Setting aside or reviewing the judgment of 15th December 2023
The application did not meet the grounds for review under Section 21A of the Supreme Court Act; it was an appeal disguised as a review.
Reinstatement of the Environment and Land Court and Court of Appeal judgments
The prayer for review having failed, it does not suffice to consider the other prayers.
Costs
The applicant shall bear the costs of the application which shall be payable to the 1st-4th respondents/appellants, the 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 18th and 21st respondents.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The application dated 20th December 2023 is hereby dismissed.
The applicant shall bear the costs of the application which shall be payable to the 1st-4th respondents/appellants, the 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 18th and 21st respondents.
Looking at the issues raised by the applicant, we are unable to see how any of the grounds and allegations fall within the parameters of our jurisdiction of review. At best, the notice of motion is an appeal, disguised as an application for review.
In Fredrick Otieno Outa v Jared Odoyo Okello & 3 Others, SC Petition No. 6 of 2014; [2017] eKLR, this Court held that it does not have the jurisdiction to sit on appeal over its own decisions.
the only regime of law that govern proceedings before the Court are, the Constitution, Supreme Court Act, the Supreme Court Rules and any Practice Directions.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Strict review vs appeal limits
The ruling reinforces that review applications under Section 21A of the Supreme Court Act cannot be used to re-litigate the entire case. Ensure your application clearly identifies a specific ground (e.g., fraud, error on the face of the record) and does not merely rehash appeal arguments. Also, confirm filing complies with Rule 12(1) – both physical and electronic copies – to avoid documents being expunged.
Finality of land disputes
If you are involved in a land case that reaches the Supreme Court, the decision is final. A review is extremely limited and unlikely to succeed unless you have fresh evidence of fraud or a clear error. Also, ensure your legal team files all documents properly – both physical and electronic – to avoid having your submissions thrown out, which could weaken your case.
Limited options after Supreme Court
Once the Supreme Court rules, you cannot appeal. The only way to challenge the decision is to apply for a review, but you must have a very strong reason like proof of fraud or a mistake on the face of the record. The court will not reconsider the whole case. Also, follow court filing rules strictly – missing a physical copy can get your documents removed.
Frequently asked questions
#Can I appeal a Supreme Court decision in Kenya?+
No, the Supreme Court is the highest court. You cannot appeal its decisions. However, you can apply for a review on very limited grounds, such as fraud, discovery of new evidence, or an error on the face of the record. The review is not a second appeal.
What happens if I file documents only online in Kenya's Supreme Court?+
The Supreme Court requires both physical and electronic copies under Rule 12(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2020. If you file only online, the documents may be expunged from the record. This happened to the 5th-9th respondents in the Sirikwa case.
What is the difference between an appeal and a review in Kenya?+
An appeal asks a higher court to change a lower court's decision. A review asks the same court to reconsider its own decision based on specific grounds like fraud, new evidence, or an error on the face of the record. You cannot use a review to re-argue the whole case.
Can I get costs if I win a Supreme Court application in Kenya?+
Yes, the Supreme Court can order the losing party to pay costs. In the Sirikwa case, the applicant was ordered to pay costs to the respondents who successfully opposed the review application. Costs are not automatic but are awarded at the court's discretion.
Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Fanikiwa Limited & 3 others v Sirikwa Squatters Group & 17 others[2025] KESC 79 (KLR)11 Dec 2025followed
- Alzubidi v Standard Chartered Bank Ltd & 9 others (Civil Application E100 of 2024) [2024] KECA 1829 (KLR)[2024] KECA 1829 (KLR)20 Dec 2024applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sirikwa Squatters Group v Fanikiwa Limited & 20 others", Case Analysis (2024). Petition (Application) 32 (E036) of 2022 & Petition 35 (E038) & 36 (E039) of 2022 (Consolidated). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2024/23/eng@2024-05-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.